Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment 

for the Use of Wildlife Damage Management Methods 

by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

CHAPTER XVIII

The Use of Hand Capture 

and Biological Sampling in 

Wildlife Damage Management 

February 2018 

Peer Reviewed Final 

February 2023 
i 

THE USE OF HAND CAPTURE AND BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE 

MANAGEMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS) uses hand capture methods and tools for specific wildlife 

damage management projects. These types of projects can include removing wildlife from areas 

where their populations are overabundant or causing damage to resources such as aircraft and 

aquaculture. Other projects include picking up animals in distress (injured, entrapped inside a 

structure, or sick), monitoring wildlife for potential disease, and collecting eggs and nestlings from 

species in areas where they could inflict damage, such as gulls and geese nesting on or near 

airports. An annual average of about 8,500 animals were captured using hand methods and tools, 

and 51,000 eggs were gathered between FY11 and FY15. Birds were involved in 59% of the hand 

capture activities of WS, mammals 23%, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish 18%. Using hand 

capture in wildlife damage management projects by WS includes direct hand capture and the use 

of hand tools, such as catch poles, hand gathering scat samples, denning (the process of 

removing animals from dens), and the hand removal of beaver dams using rakes. Hand capture 

methods are usually not associated with the take of nontarget animals because capture is directed 

at a specific animal. Additionally, 55,000 biological samples (e.g., DNA, vector, swabs, etc.) were 

collected from animals to monitor for zoonotic diseases and other animal health interests. 

Biological samples were obtained using "sharps" such as syringes, needles, razors, and scalpels 

to collect tissue, hair, blood, and other biological samples from carcasses and live animals. 

Human health and safety and environmental risks of hand capture as a method in wildlife damage 

management are mostly limited to potential bites from animals to WS personnel directly handling 

animals. WS employees are trained appropriately to handle animals captured using hand 

methods and tools, minimizing this risk. 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Methods and Tools used for Hand Capture and Biological Sampling .............................. 1

1.2 Use Pattern .................................................................................................................... 3

2 HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Human Health and Safety Hazards ................................................................................ 8

2.2 Ecological Hazards ......................................................................................................... 8

3 RISKS ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Human Health and Safety Risks ..................................................................................... 9

3.2 Ecological Risks ............................................................................................................11

4 UNCERTAINTIES AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................12

5 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................12

6 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................13

7 PREPARERS .........................................................................................................................14

7.1 APHIS WS Methods Risk Assessment Committee ........................................................14

7.2 Internal Reviewers .........................................................................................................15

7.3 Peer Review ..................................................................................................................16

7.3.1 Peer Reviewers Selected by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ..............16

7.3.2 Comments.................................................................................................................16

APPENDIX 1. “Other Species” Included in Tables ....................................................................23

APPENDIX 2. Biological Samples collected ..............................................................................26
1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Personnel with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) Program use hand capture methods and tools to take 

sick, injured, entrapped, or less mobile animals and to remove animals that are causing damage 

to property, agricultural resources, and natural resources. Most adult animals WS captures using 

hand tools, and methods are injured, incapacitated, or trapped inside a structure (e.g., a bird that 

flies through an open window or door and cannot escape). WS may take eggs, nestlings from 

nests, and young of burrowing rodents or denning predators to control populations in a given area 

or reduce damage to resources. WS may also remove beaver1 dams using hand tools, such as 

rakes, and collect biological samples from animals. 

WS personnel may immobilize or euthanize captured animals with the appropriate drugs per WS 

Directive 2.4302 ("Controlled chemical immobilization and euthanasia substances") or another 

method in accordance with WS Directive 2.505 ("Lethal control of animals"), which discusses the 

lethal control of animals and the use of proper euthanasia methods. Animals may be translocated 

according to WS Directive 2.501 ("Translocation of wildlife") or transferred to wildlife rehabilitators 

or other agencies. Denning is a technique used to manage damage to livestock and other 

resources and/or reduce threats to human health and safety caused by predators or burrowing 

rodents (see Tischaefer 2020). Denning is conducted in accordance with WS Directive 2.425 

("Denning") and is only done for predators that excavate dens and burrowing rodents. Capturing 

animals using hand methods and tools is often the quickest way to resolve a problem and may 

create the least stress for an animal because, if capture is done promptly, stress and pain are not 

prolonged. 

This human health and ecological risk assessment provides a qualitative evaluation of the 

potential risks and hazards to human health, nontarget fish and wildlife, and the environment 

resulting from the capture of wildlife using hand methods and tools, hand gathering wildlife, 

removing eggs, obtaining biological samples, and removing beaver dams by hand or with hand 

tools. The methods used in this risk assessment follow standard regulatory guidance and 

methodologies and generally conform to other Federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) (National Research Council 1983; USEPA 2017). 

1.1 Methods and Tools used for Hand Capture and Biological Sampling 

Hand capture and the use of hand tools have specific functions and vary in use. Direct hand 

gathering, catch poles, and snake tongs are the primary methods used in hand capture. The 

primary hand tools that WS uses are rakes and cultivation prongs for beaver dam removal and 

shovels for denning. Collecting biological samples may occur with scalpels, knives, syringes, and 

other devices, tools that often easily cut, puncture, or scrape, thus getting the name "sharps." 

Sampling can include minimally invasive procedures such as tracheal, cloacal, or fecal swabs. 

Additionally, devices such as ladders and booms may be used to access animals or their nests.

 Hand Gathering – Hand gathering is used when picking up small or injured mammals, birds 

(including eggs and nest removal), reptiles (including eggs), amphibians, fish, and fecal 

samples. Hand gathering requires the most direct contact with an animal. WS personnel 

adhere to guidelines in WS Directive 2.635 ("Zoonotic diseases and personal protective 

equipment") when handling animals and collecting biological samples with their hands. WS 

1

 Scientific names for species are given in the text only for species not discussed in the Wildlife Damage Management Methods Risk 

Assessment Introduction (Chapter 1). 

2All WS Policy Directives referenced in this document can be found @ 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage under Wildlife Damage – WS Program Directives. 
2 

personnel often wear personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and protective 

clothing. Gloves, especially when handling animals showing disease symptoms and collecting 

biological samples, reduce the chance of disease spread and contamination of biological 

samples. 

 Catch Poles – A catch pole is a pole 

with a tightening grip cable, a quickrelease knob, and a cable loop that 

tightens around an animal's neck or 

body and holds the animal away 

from the captor (Figure 1). Catch 

poles are used to capture and 

restrain animals. Animals most often 

restrained with catch poles are 

incapacitated animals, such as a 

deer injured in an automobile 

accident, or entrapped animals, such 

as an opossum stuck in a window 

well at a residence. Catch poles are 

also used to release animals from 

traps, such as nontarget animals 

captured inadvertently or target 

animals being relocated, handled for 

collection of biological samples, or 

other reasons. If an animal is to be 

euthanized, especially where 

firearms or other euthanasia 

methods would cause a safety 

concern, catch poles are often used 

to put the animal into a holding cage. The animal is then transported in a cage to a safe 

location where euthanasia methods can be employed. 

 Additional Hand Capture Methods – WS could use additional hand capture methods to 

capture animals that function similarly. Those methods live-capture animals by grabbing or 

restraining animals, such as snake tongs, "Y" poles, and poultry hooks. Snake tongs consist 

of a pole that allows the user to grab and hold a snake at a distance. "Y" poles consist of a 

pole with a "V" at one end that allows users to place the "V" over an animal to pin them against 

the ground or other surface and restrain them at a distance from the user. Poultry hooks

generally consist of a pole with a small hook at the end, which allows WS personnel to slide 

the hook over a bird's foot from a distance to hold it in place for capture. 

 Hand Tools – Some hand tools that WS could use for various purposes include telescoping 

extension poles, shovels, and cultivation rakes. WS may use telescoping extension poles to 

remove nests in out-of-reach locations, shovels to excavate dens, and rakes to remove beaver 

dams. 

Figure 1. A catch pole with a grip loop and tightening cable, 

and a catch pole being held to give an indication of length. The 

grip loop is for capturing the animal and a cable release allows 

the cable to be loosened.
3 

 Ladders and Mobile Elevated Working Platforms – 

Ladders, ladder booms (e.g., "cherry pickers – Figure 2), 

hydraulic lift platforms, and other mobile elevated working 

platforms may be used to remove nests from high areas. 

WS removes nests to discourage nesting at a location, 

especially around airports, bridges, and other areas 

where they are causing damage. WS personnel that use 

this type of equipment, especially mobile elevated working 

platforms, are trained in their use because these machines 

can present risks in and of themselves. 

 Biological Sampling Methods – WS may use "sharps" – 

anything that can puncture, cut, or scrape skin – to collect 

biological samples. Examples include syringes for blood sampling and scalpels or knives for 

tissue and/or tooth sampling. Personnel wear examination gloves to collect samples (e.g., 

fecal and DNA) to minimize contamination of samples and exposure to zoonotic diseases. 

PPE is worn, such as gloves, eyeglasses, and masks, especially when working with animals 

known to have or show disease symptoms, to minimize potential exposure while handling 

animals. Additionally, WS personnel receive training to reduce the risks of handling sharps. 

1.2 Use Pattern 

The annual average number of target animals captured with methods and tools for hand capture 

and hand gathering from FY11 to FY15 is shown in Table 1. A total of 5,067 animals per year 

were captured using hand gathering and then euthanized using other methods. A total of 1,932 

animals per year were relocated or released after capture using hand gathering or hand tools (i.e., 

catch pole). A total of 41,447 eggs were gathered by hand per year. A total of 382 dens and 

burrows of predators and rodents were taken per year with an estimated 1,435 animals; of that 

number, 8% were predators, and 92% were rodents. Catch poles were used to capture an annual 

average of 109 animals, 61% being predators. Hand tools such as cultivation rakes and 

telescoping poles were used to remove 8,694 beaver dams and 9,548 bird eggs per year. 

WS used hand capture methods and tools to capture or gather an annual average of 8,510 

animals, take 382 burrowing mammal dens (den occupants were estimated and added to the 

lethal take3), collect 50,995 bird and reptile eggs, and remove 8,694 beaver dams from FY11 to 

FY15 (Table 1). There were 268 known species captured using hand gathering methods and 

tools, reflecting the diversity of species that can be involved. Species caught using hand capture 

methods and tools can be injured, stuck, rescued, or freed by WS personnel. WS did not take 

any nontarget species using hand capture methods and tools. Because hand capture is directed 

at specific target animals, scenarios where a nontarget species would be involved rarely occur. 

The annual average number of target mammal species that were taken by all hand capture or 

hand gathering methods for FY11 to FY15 is shown in Table 2a. Hand captured mammal species 

may be euthanized on location to minimize pain and stress, including those in distress from an 

injury, showing disease symptoms, or involved in denning. An annual average of 1,435 mammals 

were taken in denning operations. 

3

 Beaver dens may be beaver lodges that were removed following the draining of a beaver pond. Occupants would have likely left if 

the water in a pond drained. Beaver dens in dams are sometimes removed when the water in a pond is low and subsequently filled 

so that the dam does not collapse when the water returns. Though not likely, these could have occupants and thus take was 

estimated to be conservative.

Figure 2. A cherry picker boom 

which is used to reach nests in high 

places. Picture from 

http://lvexpo.com/.
4 

Table 1. The annual average number of animals captured with hand capture tools and methods by WS in 

Wildlife Damage Management activities from FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States.4 

ANNUAL AVERAGE SPECIES TAKEN WITH HAND CAPTURE METHODS AND TOOLS 

SPECIES1 TARGET Burrows2

/Dams 

Killed3 Released Eggs Number 

HAND CAPTURE – Capture by Hand

Mammals (54 sp.+ unidentified bats) 177 311 - - 

Birds Associated with Land (83 sp. + 4 sp. empty nest + unid. 

birds)

1,444 84 4,686 - 

Birds Associated with Water (64 sp.) 2,080 1,317 36,243 

Reptiles (54 sp. + unidentified turtles) 1,306 179 518 - 

Amphibians (4 sp.) 60 4 0 - 

Fish (1 sp.) 0 4 0 - 

HAND CAPTURE TOTAL (260 known sp.) 5,067 1,899 41,447 - 

HAND TOOLS – Denning1

Predators (5 sp.) 129 - - 34 Dens 

Rodents (4 sp.) 1,306 - - 348 Burrows 

DENNING TOTAL (9 sp.) 1,435 0 0 382 

HAND CAPTURE – Catch Pole 

Predators (12 sp.) 49 17 - - 

Other Mammals (8 sp.) 1 3 - - 

Birds (3 sp.) 23 0.4 - - 

Reptiles (12 sp. + 1 unidentified 0.2) 3 13 - - 

CATCH POLE TOTAL (35 sp. + unid. (1 sp. max)) 76 33 - - 

HAND TOOLS - Dam Rakes/Cultivation Prongs 

Beaver Dams 0 0 0 8,694 Dams

RAKES (1 sp.) 0 0 0 8,694 

HAND TOOLS – Nest/Egg Removal

Birds Associated with Land (20 sp. + 13 sp. empty nests) - - 774 -

Birds Associated with Water (12 sp. + 1 sp. empty nest) - - 8,774 - 

HAND TOOLS – NEST-EGG REMOVAL TOTAL (32 sp.) - - 9,548 -

AVE. ANNUAL ANIMALS TAKEN WITH HAND CAPTURE 6,578 1,932 50,995 382/8,694

1Species taken are detailed in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c. 

2Den occupants estimated in Table 2a, but given here. 

3Animals were captured alive and were subsequently euthanized using other methods. 

Of these, 85% were California ground squirrels, 7% were coyotes, 5% were woodchucks, and 1% 

striped skunks. Several raccoons and skunks were captured because they exhibited disease 

symptoms, such as rabies (Lyssavirus spp.) and canine distemper (Canine morbillivirus). The 

remainder were typically injured or entrapped inside structures such as houses and window wells. 

Bats are often captured from inside residences and airport terminals. Most of the larger animals 

(e.g., coyote, feral dog) and some smaller ones (e.g., beaver, opossum) were taken with the use 

of catch poles. Finally, 8,694 beaver dams per year were removed by hand or with tools such as 

rakes in areas where they had flooded crops, residences, roads, and other resources. 

More than 150 free-roaming and feral dogs were taken annually from FY11 to FY15, especially 

in aircraft movement areas, and are generally turned over to local animal control offices. Freeroaming dogs can be coaxed to come to people easily because they are usually domesticated 

pets. Two gray wolves, a federally listed threatened and endangered species, and a Louisiana 

black bear, a federally listed threatened and endangered species in FY11-15, were captured and 

released. Several animals were freed from materials that entrapped them, such as fences and 

netting. If animals had injuries that were deemed not survivable, they were euthanized. However, 

some were taken to wildlife rehabilitators if injuries were minor. Hand capture can be a very 

effective method and a method that often leads to the least physical trauma. For example, hand 

capture was also effectively used for a study involving bighorn sheep lambs, whereas other 

methods may have been more traumatic (Smith et al. 2014). 

4

 Minor discrepancies exist between Table1, and Tables 2a, b, and c, due to rounding errors. 
5 

Table 2a. The annual average number of target mammal species taken with hand capture methods and 

tools by WS in Wildlife Damage Management activities for FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States. 

SPECIES1 TARGET SPECIES1 TARGET 

Killed Freed Den2 Killed Freed Burrow2

MAMMALS 

Virginia Opossum^ 51 7 0.6 American Beaver 12 1 6 

Feral/Free-roaming Cat* 4 41 - - Beaver Dams4 N/A N/A (8,694) 

Coyote 112 0 25 Woodchuck 79 1 38 

Gray WolfT&E 0 0.4 - California Ground Squirrel 1,219 0.2 305 

- Feral/Free-roaming Dog* 1 152 - North American Porcupine 0 32 - 

Black Bear 0.8 1 - Rabbit/Other Rodent (18 sp.) 3 11 6 0.2 

- Louisiana Black BearT&E 0 0.2 - Brazilian Free-tailed Bat 3 8 -

Raccoon 94 16 Big Brown Bat 2 42 - 

Striped Skunk 44 2 7 Unidentified Bats3 4 4 - 

Other Predator (11 sp.)3 20 3 2 Other Mammals (9 sp.) 3 3 7 -

Hoofed Mammals (6 sp.) 3 5 7 - GRAND TOTAL (56 sp.) 1,665 331 384 

* Introduced Species ^ Translocated widely in North America T&E – Threatened and endangered sp. N/A - Not applicable 

1

 Species with a lethal and nonlethal take greater than 10 are given, otherwise combined in categories. 

2 An estimate was made for den/burrow occupants for denning if not given since the WS Management Information System (MIS) 

database requires the number of dens taken to be recorded and not the number of occupants. The estimate was added to the number 

lethally taken since most are euthanized (some may be given to wildlife rehabilitators, but the outcome is unknown in MIS). Estimates 

per burrow were 8 for brown rat, 4 for opossum, coyote, red fox, and California ground squirrel, 3 for striped skunk and badger, and 2 

for beaver and woodchuck. Thus, for example, of the 112 coyotes taken, at least 100 were den occupants (25 x 4). 

3. Other mammals and possible unidentified bat species are listed in Appendix 1. 

4

 Dams taken by hand or with hand tools (e.g., four-pronged cultivators/rakes) were given but not included in the total. 

Table 2b. The annual average number of target bird species taken with hand capture methods and tools 

by APHIS-WS in Wildlife Damage Management activities for FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States. 

SPECIES1 TARGET SPECIES1 TARGET 

Killed Freed Eggs Killed Freed Eggs 

BIRDS 

Birds Associated with Land Birds Associated with Water 

European Starling* 256 0.2 496 Mew Gull 44 4 683 

Common Grackle 11 0.6 283 Ring-billed Gull 2 0.6 21,498 

Other Blackbirds (5 sp.)2 6 0 26 California Gull 56 0.2 20 

Rock Dove* 248 3 220 Great Black-backed Gull 9 0 206

Mourning Dove 12 3 88 Glaucous-winged Gull 226 0.2 638 

Other Doves (4 sp.)2 6 0.2 6 American Herring Gull 375 2 7,812 

American Crow 8 0.4 84 Other Larids (5 sp.) 2 4 0.4 69

Common Raven 26 2 100 Feral Domestic Graylag Goose* 7 3 39

Other Corvids (4 sp.)2 1 0.4 17 Canada goose 682 22 8,787 

Western Osprey 1 5 48 Mute Swan 25 6 163

Bald Eagle 0 1 0 Gadwall 0 19 0 

Red-tailed Hawk 1 11 18 Mallard 44 65 108 

Golden Eagle 0 0.2 0 - Feral Domestic Mallard* 11 30 61 

American Kestrel 2 10 0.8 Other Waterfowl (18 sp.)2 7 14 81 

Other Raptors (20 sp.)2 3 27 12 Laysan Albatross 0 603 86

Red Junglefowl* 7 0 7 Wedge-tailed Shearwater 0 24 0

- Domestic Chicken* 11 1 4 Newell's ShearwaterT&E 0 0.6 0 

Ring-necked Pheasant (captive)* 500 0 0 Double-crested Cormorant 32 486 2,188 

Other Gallinaceous Birds (2 sp.)2 0.2 4 2 Other Waterbirds (10 sp.) 0 3 71 

Barn Swallow 165 0.4 1,422 Yellow Bittern* 9 0 417

Cliff Swallow 23 1 1,954 Western Cattle Egret^ 190 26 1,928 

Cave Swallow 84 0 0.8 American Coot 364 0.2 0 

Other Aerialists (7 sp.)2 2 4 61 Other Wading Birds (6 sp.)2 2 1 54 

Nonpasserine Forest (3 sp.)2 3 0 3 Killdeer 12 2 86 

American Robin 22 0.6 147 Other Shorebirds (7 sp.)2 1 4 21 

House Sparrow* 34 0.6 331 Total Water Birds (64 sp.) 2,102 1,316 45.016 

Other Passerines (21 sp.)2 10 8 57 Unidentified Birds 0 0 75 

Total Landbirds (84 sp.) 1,442 84 5,388 GRAND TOTAL (148 sp.) 3,544 1,400 50,479 

* Introduced Species ^Translocated widely in North America 

1 Species with lethal and nonlethal take, and 1/10 the eggs that are > 10 are given, otherwise combined into categories (T&E 

species are given). 

2. Other birds are listed in Appendix 1. 
6 

The annual number of birds taken with hand capture methods and tools by WS from FY11 to 

FY15 is shown in Table 2b. The table is separated between birds associated with land and water. 

Gulls can pose a hazard at airports where they like to feed and loaf. In the United States, gulls 

were involved in an annual average of 400 of the 9,200 wildlife strikes with aircraft with identified 

species between FY11 and FY15; 45 involved more than one bird (FAA 2017). Gulls can be 

extremely dangerous for aircraft and passengers, possibly causing extensive damage (averaging 

$2.3 million dollars in aircraft damage annually). WS, while protecting aircraft, took 716 gulls, 

mostly nestlings or injured birds on runways, and 30,926 eggs of larid species annually between 

FY11 and FY15. Swallows, also nesting at airports, were captured most of all the land birds. In 

FY14, WS euthanized 2,500 pheasants (annual average of 500) due to an outbreak of avian 

cholera to prevent the disease from spreading to other domestic and wild birds. The total number 

of land birds and birds associated with water that was taken using hand capture by WS was 

minimal and would not harm any of their populations. 

The annual number of reptiles, amphibians, and fish that were taken with hand capture methods 

and tools from FY11 to FY15 by WS personnel is shown in Table 2c. Brown tree snakes, an 

invasive species on the island of Guam, had the highest take of hand captured reptiles at an 

average annual take of 1,294 between FY11 to FY15. Night-time spotlight searches of fences 

with hand capture is a primary brown tree snake capture method (Hall 1996, Engeman and Vice 

2001). The green iguana, an invasive species in Florida, was the sole species of reptile with eggs 

taken from FY11 thru FY15, with an annual average of 518 eggs collected. WS captured and 

relocated snakes and other reptiles from runways, roadways, and houses. For example, WS 

relocated two northern Mexican garter snakes, a threatened and endangered species, from 

roadways where they would have been killed. Less than 100 amphibians and fish are taken by 

hand capture annually. The majority of these were the marine toad, another invasive species in 

Guam. Marine toads are highly toxic to dogs, causing toad venom toxicosis. WS monitors kennels 

for these toads to protect their detector dogs from exposure. 

Table 2c. The annual average number of target reptiles, amphibians, and fish taken with hand capture 

methods by APHIS-WS in Wildlife Damage Management activities for FY11 to FY15 throughout the United 

States. 

SPECIES1 TARGET SPECIES1 TARGET 

Killed Freed Eggs Killed Freed Eggs 

REPTILES, AMPHIBIANS, AND FISH 

Crocodilians (2 sp.) 2 0.2 7 0 W. Diamondback Rattlesnake 3 65 0 

Pond Slider^ 0.6 11 0 Other Snakes (32 sp.) 2 4 33 0

Common Snapping Turtle^ 0 14 0 Unid. Nonvenomous Snakes3 0 3 0 

Other Turtles (13 sp.) 2 0 26 0 Reptile Total (59 sp.) 1,310 191 518 

Unid. Turtles (26 poss. sp.) 2 0 9 0 Marine Toad* 60 0 0

Green Iguana* 2 0.4 518 Other Toads (3 sp.) 2 0 4 0

Other Lizards (4 sp.) 2 0 1 0 Amphibian Total (4 sp.) 60 4 0 

Brown Tree Snake 1,294 0 0 Flathead Mullet 0 4 0 

Gopher snake 6 21 0 Fish Total (1 sp.) 0 4 0 

Terrestrial Garter Snake 0.2 0.2 0 TOTAL Table 2c (64 sp.) 1,370 199 518

- North Mexican Garter SnakeT&E 0 0.4 0 TOTAL Tables 2a, 2b, 2c (268 sp.) 6,579 1,930 50997 

* Introduced Species 

^Translocated widely in North America 

1 Species with lethal and nonlethal take, and 1/10 the eggs that are > 10 are given, otherwise combined into categories (T&E 

species are given). 

2. Other categories are listed in Appendix 1. 

3

 Unidentified nonvenomous snakes were captured in Florida and Missouri. 

The WS National Wildlife Disease Program, National Feral Swine Damage Management 

Program, and Rabies Management Program, along with all other WS employees, collect 

biological samples from animals while in hand. Animals can be taken in Wildlife Damage 

Management (WDM) projects, including hand captured, road-killed, found dead, or hunter-
7 

harvested or captured with other methods such as cage traps. The biological samples WS 

collected from internal (e.g., blood, tissue, brain stem, and mouth or anal swab), external (e.g., 

whole carcass, tooth, and external DNA samples, such as hair), and environmental (fecal 

samples) sources, and samples of parasites (e.g., flukes) and disease vectors (e.g., ticks) are 

shown in Table 3a. The disease testing conducted using these samples is shown in Table 3b. It 

should be noted that one animal can supply many different samples. WS has standard methods 

to collect biological samples to ensure proper sample collection, minimize exposure to WS 

personnel, and avoid sample contamination and stress to the animal. Biological samples are often 

collected with "sharps," including syringes, needles, scalpels, microtome blades, razors, knives, 

Pasteur pipettes, and scissors, which have risks associated with them and will be discussed. 

Table 3a. The annual average number of biological samples collected by WS in WDM activities from 

FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States. Samples were collected from internal (blood, tissues, brain 

stems, teeth, and mouth or anal swabs), external (complete carcass and DNA samples), and 

environmental (fecal samples) sources, and from parasites and disease vectors, such as ticks and fleas. 

ANNUAL AVERAGE SAMPLES TAKEN

Class Group Sp. Internal External Environ. Invertebr. Total

Mammal Predator1 32 28,321 255 195 1,067 29,838

Hoofed 

Mammals

13 14,587 46 337 119 15,089 

Other Mammal2 33 1,619 33 - 4 1,656 

Bird Assoc. w/ Water 72 6,676 54 96 126 6,952 

Assoc. w/ Land3 71 1,450 126 3 0.2 1,579 

Reptile Turtle 5 122 - - - 122 

Invertebrate Vector na - - - 29 29 

TOTAL 219 52,775 514 631 1,345 55,265

1 Samples were taken from wolves and dogs, which are one species. 

2 In addition, samples were taken from bats (all) and were not identified, but could have been any number of 40 species. 

3 Samples taken from unidentified birds were also included in this category. These were often the remains from bird strikes with 

aircraft and were sent in for DNA analysis. 

Table 3b. The annual average number of biological samples collected by WS in WDM activities from 

FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States to monitor the presence of different diseases. 

ANNUAL AVERAGE SAMPLES OF DISEASES, PARASITES, AND OTHER MALADIES

Disease Samples Disease Samples Disease Samples

Rabies 18,617 Bovine Tuberculosis 490 Lyme Disease 60

Tularemia 4,996 West Nile Virus 412 Ticks 60

Plague 4,171 Canine Parvovirus 334 African Swine Fever 47

Avian Influenza 3,061 Salmonella 296 Canine Heartworm 41

Exotic Newcastle Disease 2,523 Wellfleet Bay Virus 211 Escherichia Coli 32

Swine Brucellosis 2,105 Equine Encephalitis (Eastern) 193 Echinococcosis 27

Pseudorabies 2,100 Porcine Reprod. & Resp. 193 Porcine Epidemic 25

Classical Swine Fever 2,069 Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease 169 Ehrlichiosis 25

Chronic Wasting Disease 1,982 Avian Bornavirus 142 Bluetongue 25

Swine Influenza 1,973 Neosporosis 124 Bovine Brucellosis 20

Toxoplasmosis 1,902 Canine Distemper 96 Rocky Mtn. Spotted 16

Raccoon Roundworm 1,450 Lead Poisoning 92 Other Diseases* 1,836

Avian Paramyxovirus 961 Trichinellosis 82 Genetics 436

Leptospirosis 792 Giardiasis 78 Other Parasites 224

Hepatitis E 674 Foot and Mouth Disease 72 Other Tests 31

*Includes mostly diseases not in the MIS system, such as circovirus, protothecosis, and virulent Newcastle disease. However, most 

were unidentified in the MIS in the remarks and, thus, cannot be parsed out to specific diseases. 

WS monitors the prevalence of diseases that can be infectious and transferable to humans (e.g., 

zoonotic); therefore, WS personnel can be at risk of contracting them should proper protocols not 

be followed, or an accident happens. Most biological samples collected by WS personnel are 

blood or tissue that are sent to a lab for processing. WS personnel collected an annual average 

of 55,265 biological samples from animals taken in WDM projects and animals found dead (e.g., 

road-kill) or hunter-harvested animals from FY11 through FY15. However, those that died from 

unknown causes create the most concern because they could have died from an infectious 

disease. Additionally, animals taken in WDM projects could include sick animals. From FY11 

through FY15, WS collected an annual average of 18,617 samples for rabies, 4,996 for tularemia, 
8 

and 4,171 for plague. These three infectious diseases accounted for 50% of the biological 

samples collected for disease testing during this time. 

2 HAZARDS 

2.1 Human Health and Safety Hazards

Hand capture poses a safety risk to the person conducting the action because the person is often 

in direct contact with an animal or within arm's reach. Using catch poles, snake tongs, and other 

hand tools can facilitate capturing or sampling wildlife and minimize some risks. However, even 

with these tools, large and powerful animals such as small bears or deer are often a serious 

concern due to their strength. They may require a second person to assist or the use of 

immobilization drugs prior to handling5. Human health and safety hazards associated with hand 

capture include direct injury from the animal, including bites, scratches, and other direct physical 

impacts. Wild animals that are "cornered" can be very aggressive, even if it is a typically docile 

animal. Any wrong move can provide the animal with an opportunity to injure WS personnel. 

Collecting biological samples with sharps presents its own risks, especially considering the 

potential for exposure to infectious diseases. WS personnel may get injuries from using sharps 

during sample collection, such as cuts, abrasions, or punctures. During collection, it is possible 

for the employee to accidentally poke or cut themselves while obtaining a biological sample, which 

could expose them to an infectious zoonotic disease, similar to risks faced by health care 

professionals. These will be discussed along with incidences of their occurrence. WS personnel 

are trained to collect the samples to ensure their safety and to obtain them correctly so as not to 

contaminate them. All WS personnel that use sharps, in collaboration with the APHIS Biosafety 

Officer, are required to watch "Safe Handling and Disposal of Sharps Training Video" and adhere 

to Standard Operating Procedure HS/WS 001.00 "Safe Handling and Disposal of Sharps in 

Laboratory and Field Settings within Wildlife Services". 

WS personnel should carry a medical alert card, so medical personnel knows that diseases from 

animal exposure are a potential source of sickness. Animal bites and scratches must be reported 

(federal forms CA-1 or -2 and the APHIS Online First Report). Personnel who handle or are 

exposed to diseased wildlife are trained using disease-specific training manuals. Training 

manuals include instructions for collecting samples specific to that disease, sample storage, and 

sample shipping for testing. There are also in-person training courses, including Necropsy Lab 

and Wildlife Disease Preparedness Training, available for all WS employees through the WS 

National Training Academy. 

2.2 Ecological Hazards 

Ecological hazards associated with hand capture methods could include the unintentional injury 

or death of a target animal while trying to capture it, the capture of a nontarget animal, and 

ecological contamination from using varying hand capture and biological sampling methods. The 

injury or death of target species usually occurs when animals try to free themselves from 

structures or entrapped space and are hurt or killed unintentionally while being captured. WS 

personnel try to minimize these problems during hand capture activities, primarily by moving 

slowly, minimizing movements as much as possible, and staying calm. The capture of a nontarget 

species, though extremely unlikely, would also be an ecological risk. Hand capture methods do 

not contaminate water or result in the bioaccumulation of chemicals or other hazardous materials, 

with the exception of collecting biological samples. Collecting biological samples can result in 

5

 Animals that have been dosed with immobilization drugs create different concerns, which are addressed in the Immobilization and 

Euthanasia Risk Assessment.
9 

biohazards, primarily sharps such as needles, scalpel blades, and carcasses or parts thereof. 

These are disposed of in a manner consistent with WS Policies on disposal and state/local 

guidelines. 

3 RISKS 

3.1 Human Health and Safety Risks 

WS personnel are at risk of harm from hand capture and biological sampling methods. WS 

personnel are trained in proper hand capture methods by supervisors. Risks to human health and 

safety have been minimized for WS employees who are well-trained to use various hand capturing 

and biological sampling methods properly. The common hazards related to hand capture and 

biological sampling are the risk of animal bites, sharps injuries, or contracting a disease. Some 

animals may be restrained, sedated, or euthanized soon after capture to minimize stress to the 

animal and for the safety of personnel handling the animals. As required by WS Directive 2.635, 

"Zoonotic Diseases and Personal Protective Equipment," all WS personnel who handle or are 

exposed to wildlife will be provided with biological sampling, disease exposure safety training, 

and PPE training. Use of PPE such as examination gloves, cut-resistant gloves, splash-proof 

aprons, protective eyewear, face masks, and Tyvek® coveralls and shoe covers while handling 

wildlife can significantly minimize exposure to zoonotic diseases. Injuries to WS personnel from 

animals captured using methods and tools for hand capture are anticipated to be minimal during 

any given year. In addition to PPE training, sharps training became mandatory in FY16. In order 

to ensure that a zoonotic disease is not spread, sharps containers are labeled as biohazardous 

waste and disposed of according to APHIS policy and state/local guidelines. 

Typically, the public is not involved in WS hand capture activities and, for safety, is generally kept 

away from such activity sites to minimize the risk of injury. Members of the public with good 

intentions may try to help a sick, injured, or entrapped animal, which could result in injury. WS 

personnel have responded to requests for assistance prior to the public attempting to free an 

animal. Capturing injured animals could protect the public from being bitten or injured by an injured 

animal. 

WS field and office employees filed an annual average of 79 Office of Workman's Compensation 

(OWCP) claims for injuries, including animal bites, lacerations and punctures, burns, strained 

backs, and other injuries that occurred on the job from FY13 to FY156. WS operational field 

personnel annually averaged 3.0 bites or injuries from animals. One bite, or 0.3 of the 3.0 annual 

average, was from a bat captured by another agency that bit a WS employee while collecting a 

biological sample (testing for rabies and other diseases). Of the remaining bites, 0.7 were dog 

bites that occurred from hand gathering them at airports where they were a strike risk to aircraft, 

0.7 were pet dogs at private residences while WS personnel were contacting people that had 

requested WS assistance, and 1.3 were animals captured in various traps that were able to bite 

the WS employee; two of the latter were while the animal was being transferred to another agency. 

Thus, an average of 2.3 bite incidents were related to capturing animals alive while hand gathering 

(0.7), transferring custody to another agency after capture (0.7), relocating an animal (0.3), in the 

process of euthanizing a live-captured animal (0.3), and while handling an animal for biological 

sampling (0.3). For context, WS operations annually average the lethal take of 43,576 and 

released 11,432 predators with methods conducive to being bitten from FY13 to FY15. On 

average, the bite ratio from released animals is one bite per 5,700 releases. For animals to be 

euthanized, the ratio was much less at one bite for 145,000 animals taken lethally. Overall, the 

bite ratio was one bite for every 18,000 animals captured with methods where the animal would 

be captured alive. Thus, bites occur, but the occurrence is low. 

6

 WS started collecting claims records nationally in FY13. Thus, data was only available for a three-year period. 
10 

In addition to field personnel, from FY13 to FY15, personnel from the WS National Wildlife 

Research Center had an annual average of 1.0 animal bites or injuries from research animals, 

with bites from a skunk (0.3) and a rat (0.3), and a bone fracture from feral swine (0.3). Lab animal 

bites typically come from caged animals during routine maintenance or research. Thus, handling 

animals as part of operations or research duties has some risks. This is a minimal risk compared 

to the thousands of animals handled, but a risk nonetheless. 

WS employees filed an annual average of 83 Incident Reports for injuries, including animal bites, 

lacerations and punctures, burns, strained backs, and other injuries that occurred on the job from 

FY16 to FY20. WS operational field personnel annually averaged 5.0 bites or injuries from 

animals. An average of 1.6 bites were from dogs and cats that occurred from hand gathering them 

at airports where they were a strike risk to aircraft or were pets at private residences while WS 

personnel contacted people requesting WS assistance. The remaining bites (3.4 per year) were 

animals captured in various traps that could bite the WS employee. The numbers and types of 

incidents are similar to those reported during FY13-15. 

When WS personnel are using methods and tools for hand gathering animals, including those 

showing disease symptoms or injured, they approach animals cautiously to reduce the chance of 

panic in the animal, which can have unknown results. The primary goal is to get the animal under 

control without causing it to flee. After WS captures the animal, the risk of injury post-capture is 

minimal, but the highest risk is typically from transporting or transferring custody of an animal. 

Such captured animals have injured five employees or less per year. Risks to employees handling 

captured animals are reduced by using the appropriate methods to handle animals and using 

multiple personnel to handle large animals such as deer. A more obvious risk is associated with 

the release of captured animals. WS employees usually carry a catch pole to move the animal 

safely. It should be noted that 2 bites in three years, 0.7 annually, occurred as dog attacks; this 

again is a minimal number as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC 2003, 2015) estimates 4.5 

million dog bites from the 68 million owned dogs occur annually throughout the United States with 

800,000 requiring medical attention. Thus again, we believe the risk of bites from dogs and other 

animals to WS personnel is below the norms and, therefore, minimal. 

Sharps used to collect samples cause injury to personnel using them or personnel in the vicinity 

of a project where they are being used. From FY13 to FY15, WS personnel reported an average 

of 3.7 mishaps annually. While the number of reported sharps mishaps increased in FY16-20 to 

6.8 mishaps annually, CDC (2011) estimated that 385,000 sharps-related injuries occur annually 

in United States hospitals, which gives a clear picture of risk. WS is concerned with the number 

of incidences and began requiring training for all employees handling sharps to obtain biological 

samples in FY16. The sharps training emphasizes preparing work areas with all necessary 

equipment ahead of time, using sharps with safety features, substituting plastic ware for 

glassware, disposing of needles properly, and working in well-ventilated areas or upwind of 

contaminated sites. 

In addition, field personnel come into contact with disease vectors such as ticks. From FY13 to 

FY15, WS personnel averaged 3.0 recorded tick bites annually. From FY16-20, WS personnel 

averaged 21.4 recorded tick bites annually. It should be noted that the reporting of tick bites has 

increased significantly due to an increased awareness of the need to report tick bites. It is not 

known if the tick bites transferred tick-borne diseases. Additionally, one person became infected 

with giardiasis during beaver damage management, but it is unknown if it was from handling a 

beaver carcass. Giardiasis is caused by a microscopic parasite called Giardia lamblia.
11 

WS personnel could be exposed to infectious diseases such as rabies from field and laboratory 

activities. From FY13 to FY15, WS had an annual average of 4.0 bites, 3.7 sharps 

punctures/lacerations (it is unknown if a biological sample was taken first), 3.0 bites from disease 

vectors, specifically ticks, and 0.3 known diseases. None of the animals involved in the incidents 

were identified as subsequently diseased with the exception of fluids from tissue that came from 

a known rabid skunk, which splashed into the eye of a researcher. Thus, a potential for 11 

incidences per year from FY13 to FY15 caused concern, including the potential for exposure to a 

virulent disease such as rabies. From FY16 to FY20, WS had an annual average of 5.0 bites, 6.8 

sharps punctures/lacerations (it is unknown if a biological sample was taken first), and 21.4 bites 

from disease vectors, specifically ticks. One of the animals involved in the incidents was identified 

as subsequently diseased (rabies-positive bat). Thus, a potential for 33.2 incidences per year 

from FY16 to FY20 caused concern, including the potential for exposure to a virulent disease 

such as rabies. WS personnel can obtain the pre-exposure rabies prophylactic series with periodic 

monitoring of titer levels and follow-up boosters to reduce the potential for contracting the disease 

if exposed through a bite, laceration, or contact with animal fluids (HS/WS 002.00 "Participation 

in the APHIS Occupational Medial Monitoring Program" and HS039.00 "Rabies vaccinations and 

titer checks"). During FY16-20, 109 employees had rabies titer checks per year. Employees who 

suffer a work-related bite, laceration, or contact with animal fluids from a rabies vector species 

receive post-exposure rabies vaccinations as covered by the Office of Workers' Compensation 

Program. 

Other injuries can occur during hand captures, such as a "slip and fall" while pursuing a target 

animal. Of the injuries, WS employees had an average of 19 injuries from falls, slips, twists, and 

repetitive activities that resulted in lacerations, sprains, contusions, strains, compression bruises, 

and fractures that were associated with field activities. 

3.2 Ecological Risks 

Ecological risks are limited to the unintentional injury or death of target animals that are hand 

captured or the risk of capturing nontarget animals. The risk of injury or the unintentional death of 

a target animal can be minimized by proper training in animal handling techniques for employees 

and maintaining the proper number of personnel on-site to handle captured animals efficiently. A 

study on the mortality rates of young pronghorns being captured showed that with proper 

precautions, one might handle young pronghorns without exposing them to additional risk (Byers 

1997). 

Risks to nontarget animals are negligible to non-existent as hand capturing uses direct contact, 

only capturing the animals intended. The number of target mammals taken with hand capture 

methods during FY11 to FY15 annually averaged 8,510, with 6,578 captured and subsequently 

euthanized. No nontargets were taken, and no animal was injured or killed unintentionally. Thus, 

data covering FY11 to FY15 showed no risks to target and nontarget animals. However, it could 

potentially happen, but the risk is believed to be negligible. 

It should be noted that just the presence of humans in particular areas could have risk factors for 

nontarget species. However, WS personnel did not report any occurrence where they were 

responsible for disrupting any nontarget animals unintentionally. Capturing breeding adults of 

colonially nesting species can entail risks of nest failure and even colony abandonment, especially 

in species that react strongly to human disturbance (Courtot et al. 2016). WS has not seen this 

as a problem, given that operations in the field typically do not cause disturbances in areas over 

a long period of time. 
12 

4 UNCERTAINTIES AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

WS understands the potential risks associated with hand capturing methods, the use of hand 

tools, and associated methods and has developed directives and training to mitigate the risks to 

workers and animals. Uncertainties relate to the unpredictability of animals and the unique 

situation of each encounter. An animal's behavior following release, though mostly predictable, 

can occasionally be different than expected. Uncertainty in this risk assessment is negligible as 

WS has at least 100 years of using various hand-capturing methods for WDM activities and 

understands the potential risks of using these methods. The knowledge gained from this 

experience has helped reduce risks associated with hand capturing methods, especially regarding 

human health and safety, primarily in developing standard operating procedures and WS 

directives. Relatively few injuries have occurred due to biologcial sampling, and WS is continuing 

to modify training manuals to minimize the risks of biological sample collection. 

Cumulative impacts could occur to target animals if other factors are occurring to populations 

simultaneously as WS WDM activities. Additionally, the "Introduction to WS Methods Risk 

Assessments," Chapter 1, gives all species taken by WS from FY11 to FY15 and shows no 

significant impacts from a population standpoint. From a human health perspective, using hand 

capture methods in WDM will not have any known cumulative impacts. 

5 SUMMARY 

WS uses hand capture techniques, including catch poles, hand tools, and hand gathering, to 

capture animals as a component of an integrated approach to WDM. WS uses hand capturing 

and hand tool methods for specific projects as necessary. WS also uses methods and tools to 

hand capture animals for biological sampling and surveillance. These methods and the animals 

captured can potentially cause disease or injury to WS personnel. An annual average of 11 

incidents were reported to OWCP from FY13 to FY15 by WS personnel from all sources 

associated with this Risk Assessment, including animal bites (4.0), sharps (3.7), ticks (3.0), and 

disease (0.3). WS ensures employees are trained and certified in the proper use of methods and 

tools of hand capture systems and proper biological sample collection methods. Considering the 

type and severity of injuries, WS believes the number of incidents was minimal. WS will continually 

strive to reduce this number, but some will likely always occur. 

APHIS evaluated the potential human health and environmental risks from WS' proposed use of 

hand capturing and hand tool methods and determined that the risks to human health and the 

environment are negligible. Risks to workers are low based on WS personnel being trained in the 

proper use of methods and wildlife handling. Risks to the general public are negligible or beneficial 

because WS removes the sick or injured animal, minimizing exposure to the public. Hand capture 

methods primarily live-capture animals and are not methods that would contaminate water or 

result in the bioaccumulation of hazardous materials. Ecological hazards associated with hand 

capture methods are generally limited to the unintentional injury or death of the target species, 

primarily those entrapped in structures where easy capture or removal may not be possible. 

Training of WS staff in animal handling techniques reduces the risks of injury or death to animals. 

Risks are negligible for nontarget animals based on how WS uses the different hand capture 

methods and tools. 

 
13 

6 LITERATURE CITED 

Byers, J.A. 1997. Mortality risk to young pronghorns from handling. J. Mammalogy 78(3):894- 

899. 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2003. Nonfatal dog bite – related injuries treated in hospital 

emergency department – United States 2001. CDC, Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 

52(26):605-610. 

_____ CDC. 2011. Stop sticks campaign. CDC, Nat’l Instit. Occup. Safety and Health (NIOSH). 

Last update June 24. @ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/stopsticks/sharpsinjuries.html. Accessed 

1/11/2018.

_____ CDC. 2015. Preventing Dog Bites. CDC, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic 

Infectious Diseases. May 18. @ https://www.cdc.gov/features/dog-bite-prevention/. Accessed 

8/14/2017. 

Courtot, K.N.; Kerr, L.H.; Lyons, D.E.; Adkins, J.Y.; Roby, D.D. 2016. A low-disturbance capture 

technique for ground-nesting double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus). Waterbirds, 

39(2):193-198. 

Engeman, R. M., and D.S. Vice. 2001. A comparison of three trap designs for capturing brown 

tree snakes on Guam. Pacific Conservation Biology, Univ. Nebr., Lincoln 

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 7(1), 4-8. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2017. Search the FAA Wildlife Strike Database. U.S. Dept. 

Transport., FAA, Wash., D.C. @ https://wildlife.faa.gov/database.aspx. Accessed 

1/11/2018. 

Hall, T. C. 1996. Operational control of the brown tree snake in Guam. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 

17:234-240. 

National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the 

Process. NRC Comm. Inst. Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. National 

Academies Press, Washington, DC. 190 pp. 

Smith, J. B., Walsh, D. P., Goldstein, E. J., Parsons, Z. D., Karsch, R. C., Stiver, J. R., ... & Jenks, 

J. A. 2014. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(1), 165-174. 

Tischaefer, R. 2020 Coyotes. Wildlife Damage Management Technical Series. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. 10pp 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Pesticide science and assessing 

pesticide risks. USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs @ https://www.epa.gov/pesticidescience-and-assessing-pesticide-risks. Accessed 1/11/2018. 
14 

7 PREPARERS 

7.1 APHIS WS Methods Risk Assessment Committee 

Writers for "The Use of Hand Capturing and Biological Sampling in Wildlife Damage 

Management" 

Writer: Nikeeya Ali 

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operational Support Staff, Summer Intern 2017 

Education: Pursuing BS degree in Journalism, minor in Broadcasting, South Carolina State 

University 

Experience: Three years as contributor for The Collegian Newspaper and Stated Magazine, One 

year as Editor-in-Chief of The Collegian Newspaper. Three years' experience in radio and TV 

Production 

Writer: Thomas C. Hall 

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operational Support Staff, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Fort Collins, CO 

Education: BS Biology (Natural History) and BA Psychology – Fort Lewis College; MS Wildlife 

Ecology – Oklahoma State University 

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, identification, ecology, and damage 

management. Thirty-two years of service in APHIS Wildlife Services including operations 

and research in CO for research and OR, GU, CA, OK, and NV for operations conducting a 

wide variety of programs including bird damage research and management, livestock 

protection (predators and birds), invasive species management, wildlife hazard 

management at airports, property and natural resource protection including waterfowl, 

brown tree snake, feral swine, rodent, and beaver damage management. These Expert in 

preparing environmental documents for WS programs to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. For cage traps specifically, have 

used all types of cage traps in WDM and supervised employees that used them in their 

duties. 

Editors for "The Use of Hand Capturing and Biological Sampling in Wildlife Damage 

Management"

Editor: Michael Green 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS), Environmental Coordinator, Fredrick, MD 

Education: BS Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, University of Tennessee 

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management. Eleven 

years of work experience with WS in MD and VA. Experienced in a wide range of program 

activities including nutria eradication, airport wildlife management, and wildlife damage 

management to protect livestock, aquaculture, public safety, and natural resources. Served 

as staff biologist in WS Headquarters for two years. 

Editor: Andrea Lemay 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk 

Analysis Services (ERAS), Biological Scientist, Raleigh, NC 

Education: BS Plant and Soil Science (Biotechnology) - University of Massachusetts; MS Plant 

Pathology -North Carolina State University 

Experience: Fourteen years of service in APHIS conducting risk analysis. Four years of 

experience in preparing environmental analyses in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Editor: Fan Wang-Cahill 
15 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk 

Analysis Services (ERAS), Environmental Health Specialist, Riverdale, MD 

Education: B.S. Biology and M.S. Hydrobiology - Jinan University, Guangzhou, China; Ph.D. 

Botany (Ultrastructure/Cell Biology) – Miami University 

Experience: Joined APHIS in 2012, preparing human health risk assessments and providing 

assistance on environmental compliance. Prior experience before joining APHIS includes 18 

years environmental consulting experience specializing in human health risk assessments for 

environmental contaminants at Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA), and state-regulated contaminated facilities. 

Editor: Jim Warren 

Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk 

Analysis Services (ERAS), Environmental Toxicologist, Little Rock, AR 

Education: B.S. Forest Ecology and M.S. Entomology – University of Missouri; Ph.D. 

Environmental Toxicology – Clemson University 

Experience: Nine years of experience working for APHIS preparing ecological risk assessments 

and providing assistance on environmental compliance. Prior experience before joining 

APHIS includes other government and private sector work regarding ecological risk 

assessments related to various environmental regulations. 

Editor/Contributor: Ryan Wimberly 

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operational Support Staff, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Madison, TN 

Education: BS Wildlife Management and Ecology – Northwest Missouri State University 

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management. Eighteen 

years of service with APHIS Wildlife Services, including operations and research, conducting 

a wide variety of programs, including bird damage research and management, livestock 

protection, invasive species management, wildlife hazard management at airports, property, 

and natural resource protection. Expert in preparing environmental documents for WS 

programs to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species 

Act. 

7.2 Internal Reviewers 

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services 

Reviewer: Shelagh DeLiberto 

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS Operational Support Staff, Environmental Management Coordinator, 

Fort Collins, CO 

Education: BA Biology and Environmental Science – Ithaca College; MS Wildlife Biology – 

Colorado State University 

Experience: Nineteen years of service in APHIS conducting wildlife research. Six years of 

experience in preparing categorical exclusions and environmental analyses in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Reviewer: Steven Greiner 

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Safety and Health Manager, Fort Collins, CO 

Education: BA in Environmental Biology, University of Colorado; Certified Occupational Health 

and Safety Technologist 

Experience: Thirty years of service in APHIS Wildlife Services, stationed at the National Wildlife 

Research Center. Responsible for managing the WS Safety and Health Program. Knowledge 

and responsibilities include: office, field, and laboratory safety (chemical, biological, and 

radioactive materials), industrial hygiene, chemical management, hazardous waste disposal, 
16 

dangerous goods shipping, emergency response, workers' compensation, occupational 

medical monitoring, environmental management, and safety related training. 

Reviewer: Michael Yeary 

Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, State Director/Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Lakewood, CO 

Education: BS in Wildlife Ecology, Texas A&M University 

Experience: Special expertise in wildlife damage management including supervising an aerial 

operation program. Thirty-seven years of service in APHIS Wildlife Services in TX, KS, and 

CO with experience in a wide variety of programs (livestock, aquaculture, dairy, property, 

natural resources, and human health and safety protection) including predator, bird, beaver, 

feral swine, and rodent damage management activities. 

7.3 Peer Review 

The Office of Management and Budget requires agencies to have peer review guidelines for 

scientific documents. The APHIS guidelines were followed to have "Use of Hand Capture and 

Biological Sampling in Wildlife Damage Management" peer reviewed. WS worked with the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to have experts review the documents. 

7.3.1 Peer Reviewers Selected by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Arizona Game & Fish Department 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

7.3.2 Comments 

1. Comment: While it may be outside the scope of the assessment, collection of samples 

from live animals with "sharps" is described several times without describing any 

consideration of stress or pain management for the wildlife being sampled. In my mind 

this represents a risk for injury to wildlife.

Response: The use of sharps is discussed in this risk assessment because they are 

often used in conjunction with hand capture for biological sampling (as described in 

Section 1.1 and Sections 2 and 3. The use of Immobilization and Euthanasia drugs in 

conjunction with sharps and biological sampling are discussed separately in "Chapter 

25, Use of Immobilization and Euthanasia Drugs in Wildlife Damage Management," 

which will be posted online at a later date. 

2. Comment: Executive summary- at least with our biologists I would say needle or other 

"sharps" sticks are also high up there on the potential human health and safety risks of 

hand capture and sampling.

Response: Needle or other "sharps" sticks increased among Wildlife Services 

employees from the FY13-FY15 reporting period to the FY 16-FY20 reporting period. It 

is a risk that WS takes very seriously in precautionary training and testing for disease 

following an incident.

3. Comment: Table 3b- Should this also reflect the proportion of samples that were 

positive for these diseases to get an idea of potential risk to wildlife handlers?
17 

Response: The proportion of samples that were positive is unavailable for the FY11-15 

data set. We have included, as Appendix 2, samples collected and the percent 

seropositive for FY17-19. Rates of seropositive samples indicate a small risk of 

exposure to these zoonotic diseases. WS employees are trained in proper animal 

handling and sample collection to minimize potential risks. 

4. Comment: The document mentions training in hand capturing and disease 

management, but I would like to see more on what kind of training is conducted (one-onone, hands-on, lecture, etc.) and how changes to the training have affected injury rates. I 

also would have liked a little more detail and figures on the disease sampling methods 

and disease testing. I feel they are only briefly mentioned in the document.

Response: Training in hand capture and disease management is conducted within each 

program (state or National). Training manuals are available for disease-specific sample 

methods within each of the National programs (National Wildlife Disease Program, 

National Feral Swine Management Program, and National Rabies Management 

program. A general necropsy training program and Wildlife Disease Preparedness 

Course are available for all WS employees and are provided by our National Training 

Academy. More information on biological sampling and disease testing are available 

from our National programs web pages 

(https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/programs). Including further 

details beyond what is already included is outside the scope of this risk assessment.

5. Comment: The statistics in the document use several frequencies and annual averages, 

but it does not provide any measures for comparison, such as percentages. Percentages 

would be useful to make comparisons of the work being conducted, or number of wildlife 

strikes with aircraft, etc. In addition, though averages are useful, they can also be 

skewed. I recommend listing the range and/or median along with the annual averages to 

give the reader a better picture of the data

Response: We have included percentages in the Risk Assessment to aid readers in 

comparing data in Section 1.2. Annual averages have been used to summarize data in 

all risk assessments. Using the same summary statistics allows readers to compare risk 

assessment data easily. While averages can result in skewed values with data that have 

a non-normal distribution, we feel they represent the best analysis for our data sets.

6. Comment: Also, the document mentions terms such as "few," "many," "some," or "high." 

These terms vary in value from person to person reading the document. I recommend 

clarifying these statements and using numbers whenever possible. Finally, I would 

recommend adding more statistical data to the hazards and risks of hand capturing and 

biological sampling methods.

Response: We have clarified statements throughout the Risk Assessment that included 

terms such as "few," "many," "some," or "high" to include numbers whenever possible. 

We have supplied all the statistical data regarding the hazards and risks of hand 

capturing and biological sampling methods.

7. Comment: In the 1.1 Hand Capture and Biological Sampling Methods, it would be good 

to include or refer to a list of all hand capturing methods and tools used. The section 

suggests there are more than what is listed in the document.
18 

Response: Although many tools and hand capturing methods could be included, those 

mentioned in this Risk Assessment are most commonly used by WS during daily 

operational activities.

8. Comment: 2 Hazards and 3 Risks are very similar, except for the fact that 3 Risks is 

more detailed. Is there a reason these sections are separated, or could they be 

combined?

Response: Hazards are the potential source of harm or danger, and risks are the 

possibility that something bad or unpleasant (e.g., a hazard) will happen. The format of 

these sections is standard for a risk assessment and will not be changed.

9. Comment: In 1.2 Use Pattern, in paragraph 1, sentence 5, you have 66 in parentheses. 

Statistically, this should be noted as n=66. 

Response: We have updated this section to include percentages of animal types in 

each category. Tables 1-3 identify the actual numbers for each animal type. 

10. Comment: In paragraph 8, zoonotic would be a better term to use to replace "Many of 

the diseases monitored by the WS programs are infectious and transferable to humans."

Response: We have included the term zoonotic in this sentence in addition to the 

description. 

11. Comment: In 3.1 Human Health and Safety, paragraph 5, I recommend citing the 

source or provide figures explaining the following statement: "After WS captures the 

animal, the risk of injury post-capture is minimal, but the highest risk is typically from 

transporting or transferring custody of an animal." 

Response: We do not have a citation for this statement as it is reflected in injury and 

handling reports from our employees and staff and discussed in detail later in Section 

3.1. It is logical, however, that the highest risk with an animal would be when handling it. 

Handling the animal occurs when transporting it from a trap to a holding cage or 

transferring between holding cages (when custody of an animal is transferred). 

12. Comment: Also, in Section 3.1, paragraph 8, this would be a good place for discussing 

rabies pre-exposure vaccines, including: is it mandatory for staff to receive; 

approximately how many people receive pre-exposure vaccines annually, etc. 

Response: Rabies vaccinations are recommended per HS/WS 002.00 "Participation in 

the APHIS Occupational Medial Monitoring Program" and HS039.00 "Rabies 

vaccinations and titer checks." There may be job duties that require being rabies 

vaccinated to perform, and if employees are not vaccinated, they may be restricted from 

performing those job duties if they are not vaccinated or until they are vaccinated. We 

have added data to the Risk Assessment describing the number of employees that 

received titer checks per year, as this is the data that the agency tracks. The number of 

employees vaccinated is not tracked, as employees could be vaccinated from previous 

jobs or on personal time. 

13. Comment: Page 2 – Section 1.2 - The sentence, (starting with "A total of 5,067 

animals..."), seems to conflict with the first sentence of the next paragraph, ("WS used 
19 

hand capture techniques...") Were 6,999 total animals captured from FY11 to FY15 or 

was an annual average of 8,509 animals captured?

Response: The first sentence identifies the annual average number of target animals 

captured lethally with hand capture alone (i.e., not using hand tools like denning or catch 

poles). This corresponds to the top section of Table 1. The number 8,510 (correction 

from 8,509) is the total number of animals taken (lethally or released) using any hand 

capture or hand tool methods. Thus, 5,067 is a subset of the 8,510 animals captured. 

14. Comment: Page 4 – top of page – "Most of the large animals and some small ones 

were taken with the use of catch poles." What is considered large or small?

Response: We have listed examples of the types of animals that we consider large and 

small. 

15. Comment: Page 6 – Table 2c – Category in the table listed as "Unid. Nonvenomous 

Snakes FL/MO" What does FL/MO mean?

Response: The FL/MO in Table 2c referred to the states in which the unidentified 

nonvenomous snakes were caught. We have removed this notation and added an 

additional footnote to make this distinction clearer. 

16. Comment: Table 3A title – "....................... parasites and insect vectors (disease 

vectors such as ticks and fleas)." Biting insects such as ticks and fleas are also 

parasites. Better to say "internal and external parasites," "parasites and disease 

vectors," or some other designation since "parasites and insect vectors" is a poor 

categorization.

Response: We have changed the title of Table 3a to ..." parasites and disease vectors, 

such as ticks and fleas." 

17. Comment: Page 8 – Section 3.1 – "In addition to PPE training, the sharps training 

became mandatory recently." When is "recently?" If this document is still active in ten 

years, will "recently" still be recent?

Response: The Sharps training became mandatory in FY 16. We have included this 

timing distinction in Section 3.1. 

18. Comment: Page 8 – Section 3.1 – "It should be noted that sharps containers, marked 

"Biohazard," are disposed of properly, especially to ensure that a zoonotic disease is not 

spread." How is "properly" defined here?

Response: Proper disposal of sharps containers can vary depending on state and local 

regulations. Therefore, sharps containers are disposed of in a manner consistent with 

WS Policies on disposal and state/local guidelines. 

19. Comment: Page 9 (top) – Section 3.1 – "WS operational field personnel annually 

averaged 3.0 bites or injuries from animals. One bite, or 0.3 of the 3-annual average, 

was from a bat that was captured by another agency and bit a WS employee while 

collecting a biological sample (testing for rabies and other diseases)." If the annual 

average was 3.0 bites for field personnel, why would one bite incident account for 0.3 of 

the average? Was only one person bitten across the entire country?
20 

Response: There were a total of nine bites or injuries from animals nationally. The 

annual average number of bites or injuries from animals was 3.0 bites per year from 

FY13-15 (three years). One bite in those three years was from a bat, so 1/3=0.3 annual 

average bites from bats nationally. 

20. Comment: Page 9 – Section 3.1 – "In addition to field personnel, from FY13 to FY15, 

personnel from the WS National Wildlife Research Center had an annual average of 1.0 

animal bites or injuries from research animals with bites from a skunk (0.3) and a rat 

(0.3), and a bone fracture from feral swine (0.3)." Again, if the average is 1.0 animal 

bites annually, why are a third from one skunk bite, a third from one rat, and a third from 

a specific bone fracture?

Response: As described in response to Comment 19. There were 3 bites during FY13-

15, or an annual average of one bite per year from FY13-15. During those 3 years, 3 

bites occurred, one from a skunk, one from a bat, and a bone fracture from a feral swine. 

One bite or injury from each source (so, 1/3= 0.3 annual average bite or injury from each 

source). 

21. Comment: Page 10 – Section 3.1 – "Additionally, one person became infected with 

giardiasis conducting beaver damage management, but it is not known if it was from 

handling a beaver carcass." What other ways could that person have contracted 

giardiasis?

Response: Giardiasis is transmitted by ingesting the Giardia parasite. The parasite can 

be spread by several methods, including swallowing unsafe food or water contaminated 

with Giardia germs, transferring Giardia parasites picked up from contaminated surfaces 

into your mouth, or having contact with infected animals or animal environments 

contaminated with feces (CDC 2021; https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/giardia/infectionsources.html#:~:text=You%20can%20get%20giardiasis%20if,mouth%20could%20make

%20you%20sick). 

22. Comment: The biggest concern about the document relates to capture by trap. In my 

mind there's perhaps some unintended ambiguity regarding how the use of traps relates 

to this report. Traps are NOT listed as capture method, so do any of the tables include 

data where the animal was initially caught in a trap? If a catch pole is used to remove an 

animal from a box trap or leghold trap is that counted as a hand capture? If birds are 

caught in a mist net and sampled for West Nile virus is that included in this report. If 

geese are rounded-up in a panel trap and subsequently euthanized is that a hand 

capture? The report needs to be very clear regarding "trapped" animals.

Response: As the Risk Assessment describes, animals are sometimes trapped and 

need to be relocated to another location, to another agency, or to a place where 

euthanasia can be performed. Traps can be used to transport animals in these 

situations, and an animal may need to be handled prior to transport. The hand capture 

described in this risk assessment is largely with bird species (58% of all hand captures 

were bird species). The birds hand captured were not captured in a mist net or panel 

trap first. For reference, 704 Canada geese were captured using hand capture methods 

during FY11-15, and 25,029 Canada geese were captured using all methods (see 

Chapter 1 Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage 

Management). 

23. Comment: Page i – Executive Summary - The use of hand capture by WS includes the 

use of direct hand capture, catch poles, hand gathering scat samples, denning, and the 
21 

hand removal of beaver dams. Denning refers to what an animal does not a method of 

hand capture.

Response: Denning is a technique used to manage damage to livestock or other 

resources and/or reduce threats to human health and safety caused by predators or 

burrowing rodents (Tischaefer 2020). Denning is conducted in accordance with WS 

Directive 2.425 ("Denning") and is only done for burrowing predators and rodents. 

. 

24. Comment: Table 2b – Feral Domestic Mallard category – What criteria are used to 

distinguish between "mallard" and "feral domestic mallard"?

Response: Feral domestic mallards are larger than wild mallards and can be up to twice 

the size of a wild mallard. WS employees are trained in wildlife identification and can 

distinguish feral domestic mallards based on plumage coloration. 

25. Comment: Page 6 – "Animals can be taken in WDM projects which may include some 

hand captured, road-killed, found dead, or sportsmen harvested, or captured with other 

methods such as cage traps." If it's captured in a cage and then removed by hand, is it 

hand captured?

Response: No, animals captured with other methods such as cage traps are not 

considered hand captured. The section that this question is from is describing the 

biological sampling methods. Samples taken by WS National Wildlife Disease Program, 

National Feral Swine Damage Management Program, and Rabies Management 

Program, and other WS personnel can be from any animal that is captured by Wildlife 

Services, including those captured by means other than hand capture. The biological 

sampling conducted by Wildlife Services is included in this Risk Assessment because 

these are times when WS employees are in close contact with animals. The risks 

associated with biological sampling can be similar to those when animals are hand 

captured. Please also see the response to Comment 22. 

26. Comment: Page 7 – Section 2.1 – "Hand capture has risks because a person is often in 

direct contact with an animal or within arm's reach." Does this include capture in an 

enclosed type trap?

Response: No, this Risk Assessment addresses hand capture of animals, not animals 

that have been caught in traps. See Chapters 2 Cage-traps, Chapter 3 Cable devices, 

Chapter 4 Foothold traps, Chapter 14 Quick-kill traps for a discussion of risks associated 

with traps used by WS. See the responses to Comments 22 and 25. 

27. Comment: Page 7 – "During collection, it is possible for the employee to accidentally 

poke or cut themselves while obtaining a biological sample, which could expose them to 

an infectious zoonotic disease, similar to risks faced by health care professionals." May 

want to consider mentioning accidental injection of euthanasia or immobilizing drugs.

Response: The use of Immobilization and Euthanasia drugs in conjunction with sharps 

and biological sampling are discussed separately in "Chapter 25 Use of Immobilization 

and Euthanasia Drugs in Wildlife Damage Management" which will be posted online at a 

later date. 

28. Comment: Page 9 – "Of the remaining bites, 0.7 were dog bites that occurred from hand 

gathering them on airports where they were a strike risk to aircraft, 0.7 were pet dogs at 

private residences while WS personnel were contacting people that had requested WS 
22 

assistance, and 1.3 were animals captured in various traps that were able to bite the WS 

employee; two of the latter were while the animal was being transferred to another 

agency." Traps mentioned here, but are they included in the totals captured and should 

they be mentioned in this report?

Response: The data available for Human Health and Safety is not specific enough to 

identify if the incident was specifically related to a hand capture method or another 

trapping method. As the Risk Assessment describes, animals are sometimes trapped 

and then need to be relocated to another location, to another agency, or to a place 

where euthanasia can be performed. Traps can transport animals in these situations, 

and an animal may need to be handled before transport. Please see the responses to 

Comments 22, 25, and 26 for additional information. 

29. Comment: Page 9 – "For context, WS operations annually average the lethal take of 

43,576 and released 11,432 predators with methods conducive to being bitten from 

FY13 to FY15." So, this obviously includes predators not in the "hand capture" category, 

so why include here?

Response: As stated in the Risk Assessment these data are provided for context to 

show that the numbers of bites that occur during all operations are low and that bites 

that occur during hand capture methods are a small portion of the overall incidents. 

30. Comment: Page 9 - Section 3.1 lists total numbers of lethal take and released 

predators. This would appear to include "trapped" animals as the numbers in this section 

are much higher than those reported on page 4. If the point of this section (3.1) is talk 

about Human Health and Safety, then shouldn't the comparison be to accidents related 

solely to hand capture rather than the all captures (including traps)? They also say in this 

section that on average 1.3 bites annually were caused by animals caught in various 

traps. So.............. are trapped animals included or not?

Response: Please see the response to Comment 28. 

 

Comments received not requiring a response. 

1. Comment: The risk assessment is fair and balanced. It correctly identifies training and 

adhering to established protocols for animal handling and capture and the use of PPE as 

effective means for mitigating risk to personnel and wildlife. The injury rates for personnel 

and wildlife appear to support the risk assessment. 

 
23 

APPENDIX 1. "Other Species" Included in Tables 

Table 2a 

MAMMALS 

Other predator = feral cat*, small Asian mongoose*, red fox^, arctic fox^, gray fox, river otter, European 

ferret*, badger, coati, hooded skunk, and western spotted skunk 

Hoofed mammals = feral swine*, collared peccary, moose, mule deer (incl. black-tailed deer), white-tailed 

deer, and pronghorn 

Rabbit and other rodent = muskrat, nutria*, black-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming ground squirrel, eastern 

chipmunk, least chipmunk, Botta's pocket gopher, prairie vole, tundra vole, western gray squirrel, 

eastern gray squirrel^, eastern fox squirrel^, brown (Norway) rat*, black rat*, eastern cottontail^, desert 

cottontail, European rabbit*, and black-tailed jackrabbit 

Unidentified bat possibilities = Peter's ghost-faced, big free-tailed, Brazilian free-tailed, big-eared, 

Rafinesque's big-eared, Virginia big-earedT&E, Townsend's big-eared, spotted, pallid, big brown, hoary, 

eastern red, western red, evening, and silver-haired bats, eastern pipistrelle, western pipistrelle (canyon 

bat), and little brown, grayT&E, IndianaT&E, northernT&E, Arizona, California, fringed, long-legged, longeared, dark-nosed small-footed, western small-footed, eastern small-footed, southwestern and Yuma 

myotises 

Other mammals = nine-banded armadillo, eastern red bat, eastern pipistrelle, pallid bat, little brown myotis, 

cave myotis, long-legged myotis, dark-nosed small-footed myotis, and Yuma myotis 

Table 2b 

BIRDS 

Birds Associated with Land 

Other blackbirds = red-winged blackbird, Brewer's blackbird, brown-headed cowbird, boat-tailed grackle, 

and great-tailed grackle 

Other dove = island collared-dove*, Eurasian collared-dove*, spotted dove*, and zebra dove* 

Other corvid = California scrub-jay, black-billed magpie, northwestern crow, and fish crow 

Other raptor = turkey vulture, black vulture, Cooper's Hawk, northern harrier, Mississippi kite, Harris's 

hawk, red-shouldered hawk, broad-winged hawk, Swainson's hawk, common barn owl, snowy owl, 

great horned owl, barred owl, northern hawk owl, northern pygmy-owl, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, 

merlin, prairie falcon, and peregrine falcon 

Other gallinaceous bird = wild turkey and greater sage-grouse 

Other aerialist = common nighthawk, common poor will, chimney swift, Rivoli's hummingbird, bank 

swallow, violet-green swallow, and northern rough-winged swallow 

Nonpasserine forest birds = hairy woodpecker, northern flicker, and monk parakeet 

Other passerine birds = eastern phoebe, Say's phoebe, vermillion flycatcher, western kingbird, scissortailed flycatcher, eastern kingbird, Abert's towhee, savannah sparrow, song sparrow, eastern 

meadowlark, western meadowlark, house wren, gray catbird, northern mockingbird, American dipper, 

house finch^, common yellowthroat, northern cardinal, black drongo*, common myna*, and Eurasian 

tree sparrow* 

Birds Associated with Water 

Other larids = laughing gull, western gull, Caspian tern, least tern, and arctic tern 

Other waterfowl = brant, cackling goose, tundra swan, feral domestic muscovy duck*, wood duck, 

American wigeon, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail, green-winged teal, greater 

scaup, lesser scaup, common eider, harlequin duck, common goldeneye, Barrow's goldeneye, 

common merganser, and red-breasted merganser 

Other waterbirds = red-throated loon, Pacific loon, common loon, pied-billed grebe, red-necked grebe, 

horned grebe, eared grebe, western grebe, brown pelican, and pelagic cormorant, 

Other wading birds = black-crowned night-heron, green heron, great blue heron, great egret, little blue 

heron, and sandhill crane 

Other shorebirds = American oystercatcher, American avocet, Pacific golden-plover, semipalmated 

sandpiper, upland sandpiper, ruddy turnstone, and red-necked phalarope 

 
24 

Table 2c 

REPTILES, AMPHIBIANS, AND FISH 

Crocodilians = American alligator and spectacled caiman* 

Other Turtles = gopher tortoise, spotted turtle, eastern box turtle, Florida box turtle, ornate box turtle, 

northern painted turtle, chicken turtle, Florida red-bellied cooter, eastern mud turtle, striped mud turtle, 

common musk turtle, Florida softshell, and spiny softshell 

Unidentified turtle possibilities = gopher tortoise, spotted turtle, eastern box turtle, Florida box turtle, 

ornate box turtle, pond slider, northern painted turtle, southern painted turtle^, chicken turtle, Escambia 

map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), Barbour's map turtle (G. barbouri), false map turtle, Florida red-bellied 

cooter, river cooter, peninsula cooter (Pseudemys peninsularis), common snapping turtle, alligator 

snapping turtle, eastern mud turtle, striped mud turtle, common musk turtle, loggerhead musk turtle 

(Sternotherus minor), smooth softshell, Florida softshell, and spiny softshell 

Other lizards = Mountain spiny lizard, eastern glass lizard, Gila monster, and Argentine black-and-white 

tegu* 

Other snakes = red-tailed boa*, Sonoran whipsnake, North American racer, coachwhip, eastern ratsnake, 

red cornsnake, western ratsnake, gray ratsnake, eastern foxsnake, yellow-bellied kingsnake, eastern 

kingsnake, speckled kingsnake, plain-bellied watersnake, eastern watersnake, diamond-backed 

watersnake, northern watersnake, Dekay's brownsnake, black-necked gartersnake, two-striped 

gartersnake, eastern ribbonsnake, common gartersnake, eastern hog-nosed snake, copperhead, 

cottonmouth, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, black-tailed rattlesnake, western rattlesnake, red 

diamond rattlesnake, Mojave rattlesnake, prairie rattlesnake, Indian python*, and ball python* 

Unidentified Snakes – Most non-venomous snakes in FL and MO (captured on airport runways/taxiways 

and released elsewhere) – 48 species possible 

Other Toads = American toad, Great Plains toad, and southern toad 

* Introduced species ^ Introduced populations 

EMPTY BIRD NESTS 

Nests removed from under bridges or at airports that were outside nesting season –Steller's jay, bald 

eagle (2 nests), downy woodpecker, spotted towhee, Bullock's oriole, American bushtit, black-capped 

chickadee, yellow warbler, and unidentifiable bird 

* Introduced species ^ Introduced populations 

Table 3a 

MAMMALS 

Predator = Virginia opossum, feral cat*, lynx, bobcat, mountain lion, small Asian mongoose*, coyote^, 

Alaskan gray wolf, northwestern gray wolf, Great Plains wolf, feral domestic dog*, red fox^, swift fox, 

kit fox, arctic fox^, gray fox, black bear, grizzly bear, river otter, wolverine, fisher, American marten, 

least weasel, long-tailed weasel, short-tailed weasel, mink, badger, ringtail, coati, hog-nosed skunk, 

hooded skunk, striped skunk, eastern spotted skunk, and western spotted skunk 

Hoofed mammals = feral swine*, collared peccary, moose, elk, red deer*, mule deer (incl. black-tailed 

deer), wild and captive white-tailed deer, caribou, feral cattle*, feral goat*, feral sheep*, and feral horse* 

Other mammals = beaver^, muskrat, nutria*, black-tailed prairie dog, Gunnison's prairie dog, woodchuck, 

California ground squirrel, rock squirrel, Wyoming ground squirrel, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, roundtailed ground squirrel, eastern gray squirrel^, eastern fox squirrel^, red squirrel, southern flying squirrel, 

brown (Norway) rat*, black rat*, porcupine, Appalachian cottontail, eastern cottontail^, desert cottontail, 

snowshoe hare, black-tailed jackrabbit^, nine-banded armadillo, patas monkey*, rhesus monkey*, 

eastern mole, Brazilian free-tailed bat, big brown bat, eastern red bat, little brown myotis, and 

unidentified bats (up to 40 spp.), 

BIRDS 

Birds associated with land = European starling*, red-winged blackbird, brown-headed cowbird, common 

grackle, great-tailed grackle, rock pigeon*, Eurasian collared-dove*, spotted dove*, zebra dove*, 

mourning dove, blue jay, American crow, fish crow, common raven, turkey vulture, black vulture, 

osprey, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, Mississippi kite, Harris's hawk, redshouldered hawk, broad-winged hawk, Swainson's hawk, red-tailed, hawk, rough-legged hawk, 

ferruginous hawk, common barn owl, eastern screech-owl, western screech-owl, great horned owl, 

barred owl, burrowing owl, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, northern saw-whet owl, American kestrel, 

merlin, prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, wild turkey, sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge*, feral chicken*, 
25 

ring-necked pheasant*, common peafowl*, common nighthawk, black-billed cuckoo, tree swallow, barn 

swallow, cliff swallow, red-headed woodpecker, northern flicker, western kingbird, horned lark, 

California towhee, lark bunting, eastern meadowlark, western meadowlark, brown thrasher, American 

robin, house finch, pine siskin, northern cardinal^, red-vented bulbul*, common myna*, house sparrow*, 

and unidentifiable bird

Birds associated with water = Bonaparte's gull, laughing gull, Franklin's gull, mew gull, ring-billed gull, 

California gull, great black-backed gull, glaucous-winged gull, herring gull, black-bellied whistling duck, 

greater white-fronted goose, feral domestic goose*, snow goose, cackling goose, Canada goose, mute 

swan*, trumpeter swan, feral domestic muscovy duck*, wood duck, gadwall, American wigeon, 

American black duck, mallard including feral domestic mallards*, mottled duck, blue-winged teal, 

cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail, green-winged teal, canvasback, redhead, ringnecked duck, greater scaup, lesser scaup, common eider, surf scoter, white-winged scoter, black 

scoter, long-tailed duck, bufflehead, common goldeneye, Barrow's goldeneye, harlequin duck, common 

goldeneye, Barrow's goldeneye, hooded merganser, common merganser, red-breasted merganser, 

ruddy duck, common loon, pied-billed grebe, American white pelican, double-crested cormorant, 

common murre, wood stork, American white ibis, black-crowned night-heron, green heron, western 

cattle egret, great blue heron, great egret, little blue heron, snowy egret, Hawaiian common gallinule, 

Hawaiian coot, American coot, sandhill crane, black-necked stilt, American golden-plover, Pacific 

golden-plover, gray plover, killdeer, Wilson's snipe, and upland sandpiper 

REPTILES

Turtles = pond slider^, northern painted turtle^, northern map turtle, common snapping turtle^, and common 

musk turtle 

* Introduced species ^ Introduced populations 

Table 3b 

Other Diseases = adenovirus hemorrhagic disease, anthrax, avian cholera, avian tuberculosis, boravirus, 

botulism, bovine brucellosis, canine adenovirus, deer hair loss syndrome, pigeon zoonosis, Q-fever, 

reovirus, Rift Valley fever, sheep pox, swine vesicular disease, typhus fever, and non-specific disease, 

general disease, and other disease categories 

Other parasites = flukes, heartworms, keds, lice, mites, roundworms, and general parasites category 
26 

APPENDIX 2. Biological Samples collected 

Table 1. The average annual biological samples submitted for disease tests by WS 

operational personnel from FY17-FY19, as reported in the MIS and seropositive rate (have 

had the virus but may not be shedding) from any source. Rabies surveillance collections 

included an average of 8,466 brainstems collected in the eastern U.S. (for raccoon rabies 

variant), with 221 positives for the rabies virus. Some collections were from years other than 

FY17-FY19 where data were not available yet from testing, but the year is noted below. One 

highly pathogenic avian influenza was found in FY17 in a mallard. This table is also in 

Chapter 23, "Use of Carcass Disposal in Wildlife Damage Management." 

DISEASE Predator Hoofed 

Mammal

Rodent & 

Rabbit 

Bats Bird Turtle TOTAL % 

Seropositive 

VIRUS 

Rabies 18,840 12 143 174 - - 19,169 2% 

Avian Flu 2 - 19 - 10,652 - 10,673 ~13% 

Pseudorabies 5 1,861 - - - - 1,866 20%* 

Hog Cholera 1 1,829 - - - - 1,830 0% 

West Nile Virus 2 311 - - 84 592 989 na 

Epizootic Hemorrhagic 227 - - - - 227 ^ 

Avian Paramyxovirus - - - - 162 - 162 16%+ 

Exotic Newcastle - - - - 152 - 152 na 

Other Viral1 1 42 - - 78 - 121 na 

BACTERIA 

Plague 2,004 97 127 - - - 2,228 27% 

Swine Brucellosis 1 2,132 - - - - 2,133 6.3%* 

Tularemia 1,499 117 204 - - - 1,820 0.7% 

Leptospirosis 622 118 - - - - 740 3.6%** 

Salmonella - - - - 206 - 206 8%#

Tuberculosis3 2 95 - - 40 - 137 na 

Other Bacterial4 1 10 - - 40 - 51 na 

OTHER 

Unspecified Disease 223 1,452 19 - 302 - 1,996 na 

Prion - 564 - - - - 564 na 

Roundworms 302 - 64 - 25 - 391 na 

Toxoplasmosis 5 53 - - 79 - 137 13% 

Other Parasite/Insect Vector5 78 72 4 - - - 154 na 

Environmental (Lead) - - - - 51 - 51 na 

TOTAL 23,588 8,992 580 174 11,871 592 45,797 na 

1 Other virus = Adenovirus, African swine fever (0%), avian bornavirus, canine parvovirus, equine encephalitis, hepatitis E, porcine 

epidemic diarrhea, swine influenza (7%), swine vesicular disease, viral encephalitis, and Wellfleet Bay virus; 

2 Swine and bovine brucellosis; 

3

 Avian and bovine tuberculosis; 

4 Other bacteria = Anthrax, avian cholera, bluetongue, botulism, bovine brucellosis, chlamydiosis, ehrlichiosis, Escherichia coli, and 

typhus; 

5 Other Parasite/Invertebrate = Canine heartworm, echinococcosis, giardiasis, mites, neosporosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, 

trichinellosis (14% FY14-FY16), tapeworms, and ticks; ^ vector borne and not presented on carcass; + FY13 - 3,826 samples 

NWRC surveillance ann. avg. FY17-FY19 - * 3,190 feral swine, ** 308 feral swine between, # – 388 gamebird intestinal samples, 

tularemia 168/23,426 in FY12